17
Cerebral Spectral Perturbation during Upper Limb Diagonal Movements
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88337
identified the two peaks in forward period and comeback period as peak forward
(190 ms) and peak comeback (1160 ms), respectively.
We performed a 2 × 2 ANOVA with condition (vertical, diagonal) and peak
(peak forward, peak comeback) as factors. ANOVA was performed for specific
ROIs: frontal ROI (F3, Fz, F4), Fz, and parietal ROI (P3, Pz, P4). We performed
analysis on Fz separately because we know that this region is particularly relevant
for the generation of frontal midline theta [12, 15].
For the frontal ROI, none of the main effects was significant (all p > 0.14). The
condition-peak interaction was significant [F(1, 10) = 5.21; p < 0.05; η2 = 0.34].
Fisher LSD post hoc analysis showed that peak forward in the diagonal condition
was significantly higher than peak forward in the vertical condition (p < 0.03) and
from peak comeback in the diagonal condition (p < 0.05) (see Figure 3).
For channel Fz, none of the main effects was significant (p > 0.11). The condition-peak interaction was significant [F(1, 10) = 5.15; p < 0.05; η2 = 0.34]. Fisher
LSD post hoc analysis showed that peak forward in the diagonal condition was
significantly different from peak forward in the vertical condition (p < 0.03) and
from peak comeback in the diagonal condition (p < 0.03) (see Figure 3).
For the parietal ROI, none of the main effects or their interaction was significant
(all p > 0.14).
3.1.2 Alpha (8–12 Hz)
First, we analyzed the same time window previously analyzed for the theta band
(Peak1 = 90–290 ms, Peak2 = 1060–1260 ms) in the same clustered ROIs (frontal
ROI, parietal ROI) and POz (see Figure 4).
For all ROIs, no main effects or their interaction was significant (all p > 0.15).
In order to conduct a more specific analysis, we observed the time course and performed qualitative assessment by visual inspection. In this way, we were able to divide
each period into time windows to be used for analysis. We used this manual selection
method to identify specific time windows of interest in a data-driven approach
Figure 3.
Theta (4–7 Hz) time-frequency plot (left panels) and analysis (right panels) of the 2 × 2 ANOVA with
condition and peak as factors in frontal ROI (A, B) and Fz (C, D). In A and C, highlighted rectangles
represent time windows used for analysis. In B and D, bold lines represent significant differences (p < 0.05).
Cerebral Spectral Perturbation during Upper Limb Diagonal Movements
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88337
identified the two peaks in forward period and comeback period as peak forward
(190 ms) and peak comeback (1160 ms), respectively.
We performed a 2 × 2 ANOVA with condition (vertical, diagonal) and peak
(peak forward, peak comeback) as factors. ANOVA was performed for specific
ROIs: frontal ROI (F3, Fz, F4), Fz, and parietal ROI (P3, Pz, P4). We performed
analysis on Fz separately because we know that this region is particularly relevant
for the generation of frontal midline theta [12, 15].
For the frontal ROI, none of the main effects was significant (all p > 0.14). The
condition-peak interaction was significant [F(1, 10) = 5.21; p < 0.05; η2 = 0.34].
Fisher LSD post hoc analysis showed that peak forward in the diagonal condition
was significantly higher than peak forward in the vertical condition (p < 0.03) and
from peak comeback in the diagonal condition (p < 0.05) (see Figure 3).
For channel Fz, none of the main effects was significant (p > 0.11). The condition-peak interaction was significant [F(1, 10) = 5.15; p < 0.05; η2 = 0.34]. Fisher
LSD post hoc analysis showed that peak forward in the diagonal condition was
significantly different from peak forward in the vertical condition (p < 0.03) and
from peak comeback in the diagonal condition (p < 0.03) (see Figure 3).
For the parietal ROI, none of the main effects or their interaction was significant
(all p > 0.14).
3.1.2 Alpha (8–12 Hz)
First, we analyzed the same time window previously analyzed for the theta band
(Peak1 = 90–290 ms, Peak2 = 1060–1260 ms) in the same clustered ROIs (frontal
ROI, parietal ROI) and POz (see Figure 4).
For all ROIs, no main effects or their interaction was significant (all p > 0.15).
In order to conduct a more specific analysis, we observed the time course and performed qualitative assessment by visual inspection. In this way, we were able to divide
each period into time windows to be used for analysis. We used this manual selection
method to identify specific time windows of interest in a data-driven approach
Figure 3.
Theta (4–7 Hz) time-frequency plot (left panels) and analysis (right panels) of the 2 × 2 ANOVA with
condition and peak as factors in frontal ROI (A, B) and Fz (C, D). In A and C, highlighted rectangles
represent time windows used for analysis. In B and D, bold lines represent significant differences (p < 0.05).